DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a blast hole” in Line 10 of the Claim. It is not clear if “a blast hole” in Line 10 is referencing “a blast hole” in Line 1 of the Claim or referencing a different “blast hole” rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes “a blast hole” in Line 10 is being interpreted as “the blast hole”.
The remaining Claims 12-14 are rejected because the depend on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hefner 2023/0047650.
In Re Claim 1, Hefner teaches a funnel bucket apparatus comprising: a bucket (14) having an attachment mechanism (attachment lugs for cylinders shown in Fig. 15) that attaches the bucket to a transport machine (11); a funnel cover (16) comprising a cover portion (18), a funnel portion, and a discharge opening (26) in the funnel portion; a hinge mechanism (pivot pin through hole 24a connecting bucket to funnel cover, Fig. 8, 10), that pivotally connects the funnel cover to the bucket; and an actuator system (Fig. 9) connected to the bucket and the funnel cover, the actuator system configured to move the funnel cover between open (Fig. 9) and closed positions (Fig. 10) with respect to the bucket.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner and in view of Granryd 2,986,294.
In Re Claim 2, Hefner teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hefner does not teach a bucket vibrator attached to the bucket or the funnel cover.
However, Granryd teaches a bucket vibrator attached to the bucket (25) or the funnel cover. (Column 1, Lines 58-61)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a bucket vibrator to the system of Hefner as taught by Granryd with a reasonable expectation for success in order to empty as much load as possible with minimal residual left in the system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner and in view of Raley 6,969,226.
In Re Claim 3, Hefner teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hefner does not teach one or more discharge chute attachments configured for removable attachment to the funnel portion adjacent the discharge opening.
However, Raley teaches one or more discharge chute attachments (17) configured for removable attachment to the funnel portion (16) adjacent the discharge opening. (Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a discharge chute attachment to the system of Hefner as taught by Raley with a reasonable expectation for success in order to distribute material at a further distance away.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner and in view of Stevens 6,662,480.
In Re Claim 4, Hefner teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hefner does not teach an actuator system comprising a hydraulic cylinder having a first clevis end attached to the funnel cover and a second clevis end attached to the bucket.
However, Stevens teaches an actuator system comprising a hydraulic cylinder (120) having a first clevis end (end lug, Fig. 1) attached to the funnel cover (102) and a second clevis end (opposite End lug, Fig. 1) attached to the bucket (22). (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use an hydraulic cylinder with clevis ant the first and second ends in the system of Hefner as taught by Stevens with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a more durable hydraulic cylinder.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner and in view of Deye 5,885,053.
In Re Claim 5, Hefner teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Hefner does not teach a gate movably attached to the funnel portion, the gate operable to move to multiple positions in which the gate at least partially covers the discharge opening by different amounts.
However, Deye teaches a gate (62) movably attached to the funnel portion (60), the gate operable to move to multiple positions in which the gate at least partially covers the discharge opening by different amounts. (Fig. 1, 2, 5 and 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a gate to the system of Hefner as taught by Deye with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent material losses in the system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner and in view of Millsaps II 2016/0129823.
In Re Claim 6, Hefner teaches a method for depositing stemming material in a blast hole using the funnel apparatus of Claim 1, comprising: attaching the funnel bucket apparatus to the transport machine; (Paragraph 25) maneuvering the transport machine to a pile of the material; (Fig. 11) controlling the actuator system to move the funnel cover to the open position; (Fig. 11) maneuvering the transport machine to scoop a quantity of the material into the bucket while the funnel cover is in the open position; (Fig. 12) controlling the actuator system to move the funnel cover to the closed position; (Fig. 12) maneuvering the transport machine to an area to be loaded; (Paragraph 35) (Paragraph 26) maneuvering the transport machine to align the discharge opening with the area to be loaded; (Paragraph 35) (Fig. 13) controlling the transport machine to tilt the bucket into a discharge position in which the material in the bucket flows through the discharge opening into the area to be loaded. (Fig. 14) (Paragraph 36)
Hefner is silent concerning the material being transported and handled being stemming material; and maneuvering the transport machine to a blast hole to be stemmed; and maneuvering the transport machine to align the discharge opening with a blast hole; and controlling the transport machine to tilt the machine into a discharge position in which the stemming material in the bucket flows through the discharge opening into the blast hole.
However, Millsaps, II teaches the material being transported and handled being stemming material; (Paragraph 17) and maneuvering the transport machine to a blast hole to be stemmed; (Paragraph 16, 17) and maneuvering the transport machine to align the discharge opening with a blast hole; (Fig. 2)(Paragraph 16, 17) and controlling the transport machine to tilt the machine into a discharge position in which the stemming material in the machine flows through the discharge opening into the blast hole. (Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use stemming material as the material in the method of Hefner as taught by Millsaps, II with a reasonable expectation for success in order to expand the capabilities of the method to make detonation of blast holes much safer (Paragraph 4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner/Millsaps II and in view of Deye 5,885,053.
In Re Claim 7, Hefner/Millsaps II teaches the method of Claim 6 as discussed above.
Hefner/Millsaps II does not teach the funnel bucket apparatus includes a gate that is movably attached to the funnel portion, the gate operable to move to multiple positions in which the gate at least partially covers the discharge opening by different amounts, and wherein the method further comprises moving the gate to one of the multiple positions to affect flow of the stemming material through the discharge opening.
However, Deye teaches the funnel bucket apparatus includes a gate (62) that is movably attached to the funnel portion (60), the gate operable to move to multiple positions in which the gate at least partially covers the discharge opening by different amounts, (Column 3, Lines 37-41) and wherein the method further comprises moving the gate to one of the multiple positions to affect flow of the stemming material through the discharge opening. (Column 3, Lines 37-41)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a gate in the method of Hefner/Millsaps II as taught by Deye with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent material losses in the system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner/Millsaps II and in view of Granryd 2,986,294.
In Re Claim 8, Hefner/Millsaps II teaches the apparatus of Claim 6 as discussed above.
Hefner does not teach a funnel bucket apparatus including a bucket vibrator attached to the bucket or the funnel cover, and wherein the method further comprises operating the bucket vibrator to affect flow of the stemming material through the discharge opening.
However, Granryd teaches a bucket apparatus including a bucket vibrator attached to the bucket (25) or the funnel cover, and wherein the method further comprises operating the bucket vibrator to affect flow of the material through the discharge opening. (Column 1, Lines 58-61)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a bucket vibrator in the method of Hefner/Millsaps II as taught by Granryd with a reasonable expectation for success in order to empty as much load as possible with minimal residual left in the system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner/Millsaps II and in view of Raley 6,969,226.
In Re Claim 9, Hefner/Millsaps II teaches the apparatus of Claim 6 as discussed above.
Hefner/Millsaps II does not teach a discharge chute attachment attached to the funnel portion adjacent the discharge opening, and the method further comprises flowing the stemming material through the discharge opening and the discharge chute attachment.
However, Raley teaches a discharge chute attachment (17) attached to the funnel portion (16) adjacent the discharge opening, and the method further comprises flowing the material through the discharge opening and the discharge chute attachment. (Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a discharge chute attachment in the method of Hefner/Millsaps II as taught by Raley with a reasonable expectation for success in order to distribute material at a further distance away.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner and in view of Millsaps II 2016/0129823.
In Re Claim 11, as best understood, Hefner teaches a method for depositing stemming material in a blast hole using a funnel bucket apparatus comprising a bucket attached to a transport machine, a funnel cover pivotally attached to the bucket, and an actuator system configured to move the funnel cover between open and closed positions with respect to the bucket, the method comprising: maneuvering the transport machine to a pile of the material; (Fig. 11) controlling the actuator system to move the funnel cover to the open position; (Fig. 11) maneuvering the transport machine to scoop a quantity of the material into the bucket while the funnel cover is in the open position; (Fig. 12) controlling the actuator system to move the funnel cover to the closed position; (Fig. 12) maneuvering the transport machine to an area to be loaded; (Paragraph 35) (Paragraph 26) maneuvering the transport machine to align the discharge opening with the area to be loaded; (Fig. 14) (Paragraph 36) controlling the transport machine to tilt the bucket into a discharge position in which the material in the bucket flows through the discharge opening into the area to be loaded. (Paragraph 35)(Fig. 14) controlling the transport machine to tilt the bucket into a holding position in which the stemming material in the bucket stops flowing through the discharge opening. (Fig. 13)(Paragraph 35)
Hefner is silent concerning the material being transported and handled being stemming material; and maneuvering the transport machine to a blast hole to be stemmed; and maneuvering the transport machine to align the discharge opening with a blast hole; and controlling the transport machine to tilt the machine into a discharge position in which the stemming material in the bucket flows through the discharge opening into the blast hole.
However, Millsaps, II teaches the material being transported and handled being stemming material; (Paragraph 17) and maneuvering the transport machine to a blast hole to be stemmed; (Paragraph 16, 17) and maneuvering the transport machine to align the discharge opening with a blast hole; (Fig. 2)(Paragraph 16, 17) and controlling the transport machine to tilt the machine into a discharge position in which the stemming material in the machine flows through the discharge opening into the blast hole. (Fig. 7) flowing material into the blast hole until the blast hole is filled. (Fig. 7)(Paragraph 24 and 25)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use stemming material as the material in the method of Hefner as taught by Millsaps, II with a reasonable expectation for success in order to expand the capabilities of the method to make detonation of blast holes much safer (Paragraph 4).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner/Millsaps II and in view of Deye 5,885,053.
In Re Claim 12, Hefner/Millsaps II teaches the method of Claim 11 as discussed above.
Hefner does not teach a gate movably attached to the funnel portion, the gate operable to move to multiple positions in which the gate at least partially covers the discharge opening by different amounts.
However, Deye teaches a gate (62) movably attached to the funnel portion (60), the gate operable to move to multiple positions in which the gate at least partially covers the discharge opening by different amounts and wherein the method further comprises moving the gate to one of the multiple positions to affect flow of the stemming material through the discharge opening. (Fig. 1, 2, 5 and 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a gate to the method of Hefner/Millsaps II as taught by Deye with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent material losses in the system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner/Millsaps II and in view of Granryd 2,986,294.
In Re Claim 13, Hefner/Millsaps II teaches the method of Claim 11 as discussed above.
Hefner does not teach a funnel bucket apparatus including a bucket vibrator attached to the bucket or the funnel cover, and wherein the method further comprises operating the bucket vibrator to affect flow of the stemming material through the discharge opening.
However, Granryd teaches a bucket apparatus including a bucket vibrator attached to the bucket (25) or the funnel cover, and wherein the method further comprises operating the bucket vibrator to affect flow of the material through the discharge opening. (Column 1, Lines 58-61)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a bucket vibrator in the method of Hefner/Millsaps II as taught by Granryd with a reasonable expectation for success in order to empty as much load as possible with minimal residual left in the system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner/Millsaps II and in view of Raley 6,969,226.
In Re Claim 14, Hefner/Millsaps II teaches the method of Claim 11 as discussed above.
Hefner/Millsaps II does not teach a discharge chute attachment attached to the funnel portion adjacent the discharge opening, and the method further comprises flowing the stemming material through the discharge opening and the discharge chute attachment.
However, Raley teaches a discharge chute attachment (17) attached to the funnel portion (16) adjacent the discharge opening, and the method further comprises flowing the material through the discharge opening and the discharge chute attachment. (Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a discharge chute attachment in the method of Hefner/Millsaps II as taught by Raley with a reasonable expectation for success in order to distribute material at a further distance away.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: O’Neill and Brown teach loaders with funnel attachments. Slaby teaches a loader with a bucket for stemming material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652